Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35680943›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Howiesons Poort backed artifacts provide evidence for social connectivity across southern Africa during the Final Pleistocene.

Amy M Way, Paloma de la Peña, Eduardo de la Peña, Lyn Wadley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Amy M WayEvolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, PO Wits, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa. amy.way@sydney.edu.au.
Paloma de la PeñaEvolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, PO Wits, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa.
Eduardo de la PeñaDepartment of Plants & Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Lyn WadleyEvolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, PO Wits, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Examining why human populations used specific technologies in the Final Pleistocene is critical to understanding our evolutionary path. A key Final Pleistocene techno-tradition is the Howiesons Poort, which is marked by an increase in behavioral complexity and technological innovation. Central to this techno-tradition is the production of backed artifacts-small, sharp blades likely used as insets in composite tools. Although backed artifacts were manufactured for thousands of years before the Howiesons Poort, this period is marked by a phenomenal increase in their production. In this paper we test both social and environmental hypotheses to explain this phenomenon. We correlate environmental data with changing frequencies of backed artifact production at Sibudu and assess morphological similarity across seven sites in southern Africa. We find that these artifacts are made to a similar template across different regions and that their increased production correlates with multiple paleo-environmental proxies. When compared to an Australian outgroup, the backed artifacts from the seven southern African sites cluster within the larger shape space described by the Australian group. This leads us to argue that the observed standardized across southern Africa is related to cultural similarities and marks a strengthening of long-distance social ties during the MIS4.

Indexed as

ArchaeologyBiological EvolutionAfrica, SouthernAustraliaHumansSouth AfricaTechnology

Identifiers

PMID35680943
PMCPMC9184481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.